Loading...
02-26-01 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday February 26, 2001. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Commissioner Hoffman was absent. Also present were Director of Planning Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. I. Presentation by CommonBond Communities - Area B in Golden Valley II. Approval of Minutes - February 12, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting McAleese noted that on page two, in the fourth paragraph, the last sentence should have a semi-colon after the words single family residential. Also, on page two, in the seventh paragraph, the last sentence should read, "The City Attorney can recommend whether things belong in the code or in a policy manual for the City to use." On page 3 the first sentence should read, "McAleese noted that the state statute which authorizes PUD's (as a conditional use) does not specify in detail the process for approval." Eck noted on page three, in the eleventh paragraph, the first sentence should read, "Eck asked about the lots that go out into Sweeney Lake" not "the lake". MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese, and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 12, 2001 minutes with the above revisions. III. Informal Public Hearing - Property Subdivision (SU20-02) Applicant: Susan Gonyea Address: Lots 9, 10 & 11, Block 8 of Lakeview Heights located at 9120 Plymouth Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the main parcel of land in order to create two new lots from the three existing lots that total about 27,500 square feet. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes discussed the proposed minor subdivision of the property at 9120 Plymouth Ave in Golden Valley. Grimes referred to the area map pointing out that it is located on the north side of Plymouth Avenue, adjacent to the General Mills Research Center property, between Plymouth Avenue and Flag Avenue, the cul-de-sac end of Flag Avenue. Grimes stated the reason they want to subdivide the property is to be able to get another building site on this property. They own Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 2 a portion of lots 9, 10 and 11 of the Lakeview Heights Addition. The total area is about 27,700 square feet. Originally, they wanted to just split the property in half with a line going north to south. The problem with that is the property is only 150 feet wide and if it was split in half there would only be 75-foot wide lots, the zoning code requires 100-foot wide lots. The staff and applicant began to look at different alternatives for how this property could be split to not require variances and meet the requirements of the subdivision code. The idea that was reached is to run a line from the southeast to the northwest, which would allow the proper amount of footage for the existing house and also have the proper width at the setback lines for a house off of Flag Avenue. Since the City has the right-of-way for Flag Avenue, at this point it can be considered a street. The plans indicate the existing house is actually a duplex, not a single-family home. Grimes spoke with the City Attorney about this to see if we could get by without going through a rezoning on this property. The attorney said it needs be rezoned. Even though it's an existing nonconforming building, the subdivision code says that when property is subdivided it has to meet the requirements of the zoning code, so he's recommending that it go through a rezoning to allow the west lot to be a two-family residential zoning district. The lot they are proposing meets the requirements of the two- family district - it's large enough at 12,500 square feet and it has a two-car garage. Grimes suggested putting the rezoning hearing on the next Planning Commission meeting (March 5, 2001) so it can go to the City Council on March 20, 2001. A City Council public hearing can be held both on the rezoning and on the subdivision of the land. The comprehensive plan is low density. Keeping a two-family home here would keep the low density character of the neighborhood. Grimes next reviewed the topography of the property, and stated there's a very steep slope. The map indicates the property drops 26 to 30 feet from east to west. Grimes stated the concern that the City Staff has is in regard to building a home where we can be sure the hill will be stable after the home is constructed. Grimes mentioned talking with the City Engineer (Jeff Oliver) about this. Originally, Jeff's request was that they submit a soil stabilization plan or study on this before it went to the City Council. This is a rather expensive item to have prepared and Mr. Gonyea and Susan Gonyea felt this was an extraordinary cost for them to have to prepare prior to knowing if the City Council would even approve the subdivision. Grimes stated he sympathized with their concerns, but also realized there is a need to be sure there isn't going to be a problem with this lot once it gets platted. Grimes stated he went over the subdivision code with the City Attorney and the code states one of the conditions of the plat can be to see a soil stability study prior to the approval of the final plat. What the City Attorney is suggesting is that as part of the resolution approving the subdivision, one of the conditions can be that a soil stability report be submitted and approved by the City Engineer before we sign the final plat. Mr. Gonyea has agreed to that, because at that point in time he would know that the City would approve the plat. All he's waiting for then is the knowledge that the soil stability is acceptable to the City of Golden Valley. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 3 Grimes indicated that the home that is being proposed is about 24 feet by 66 feet. It is off of the stub end of Flag Avenue. In order to gain access to the house on the east lot, the City will have to issue a permit to use the right-of-way of Flag Avenue that is now not constructed. Another issue that came up in looking at this site is the City Engineer's request for an additional 10 feet of easement for City water and utility lines that are located in the vacated Flag Avenue. The City Engineer is concerned because of the steep slope. The 20-foot wide easement is not enough room in case of a water main break and he would like to have another 10 feet particularly if there is going to be a home there. He's also concerned about the stability of the City's utility lines, which are in the old right-of-way. Because of that, the proposed home would then get moved further to the west, which puts it into the slope a little bit more. Grimes stated that in his discussions with the Gonyea's he thought it would be reasonable as part of this process to consider a variance to move the home further to the north, so rather than the required 35 feet they would have closer to a 15 foot setback. In this case it would seem reasonable to help to get it away from the utility line and a little bit further to the north where it is a little bit flatter. That would have to be reviewed as part of the Board of Zoning Appeals. However, the home could be built there without a variance. It would just have to be further to the south. That is one of the things that we're suggesting in order to give some relief from that request for the additional 10 feet of easement area. Shaffer asked Grimes if the 100 feet width requirement was at the right-of-way line or setback line. Grimes stated that it's at the front setback line. Shaffer asked if there was a Lot 8, Lakeview Heights. Grimes stated lot 8 is owned by the City of Golden Valley. Shaffer asked if the 102.18 feet is considered the front yard of the new lot. Pentel asked in terms of the steep slope, if this could be considered a bluff. Grimes didn't know, but said he'd check with the City Engineer. Pentel asked if the unpaved driveway could be improved and if the City still allows unpaved driveways. Grimes stated the City doesn't require paved driveways. Shaffer stated currently the house and garage sit on two different lots, 10 & 11. Conceivably if they consolidated lots 10 & 11, they'd have a usable lot. They could leave 9 as it is because it's considered a lot currently. Grimes stated they could have left it, but that's something to ask Mr. Gonyea. Groger asked Grimes to clarify the easement on the east side and if it extends all the way to Plymouth Avenue. Grimes confirmed the City owns a 20-foot wide easement from Plymouth Avenue to Flag Avenue. Groger asked if there are any provisions for any distance between the City's easement and the structure. Grimes stated that the structure can be right next to the easement and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 4 that is what the City Engineer is concerned about. If the City needs to dig there, that gives us extra space to not adversely affect the homes foundation. Dennis Gonyea, applicant, was present to discuss the proposal and answer questions from the Commission. He stated there are three lots and if he were to build a house only on lot 9, it would be a real cliffhanger. e stated it would make more sense to combine the lots and make the house sit on what's now lots 9 and 10. Eck asked if the front of the house would be facing east. Gonyea confirmed that it would face east. Pentel asked why he was proposing a new garage for the duplex unit. Gonyea stated it would clean the site up. Groger asked why he was proposing to move the garage to the east. Gonyea stated it could act as a retaining wall and it would make it work better. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Mike Peltier, 1401 Flag Avenue asked how he could learn more about zoning issues and stated that he was concerned about having renters in the neighborhood. Pentel clarified that at the time the duplex was built, it was allowed to be in the single- family residential area, so now with this proposed subdivision it's a good time to clean up the zoning. Groger further clarified that it was only the western lot that they are considering rezoning on. Peltier stated concerns about soil erosion. Grimes stated that we have a soil and erosion control ordinance that addresses these issues. Marcia Hatling, 1308 Gettysburg, stated she was concerned about duplexes being put in and having renters come in. She's also concerned about having another access into the area. Pentel clarified that the new house being proposed will be single family, not a duplex. She also clarified that the rezoning is just for the existing duplex that is there now. Gerald Hatling, 1308 Gettysburg, stated he's had a lot of water problems in the past and was concerned about run-off from their property going into his yard. McAleese stated that the City is interested in drainage and erosion issues and that the development being proposed can't make the situation any worse than it is today. He further clarified that before any development can occur the proposal will have to be approved by the City Engineer. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 5 Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Grimes stated that one of the conditions of a minor subdivision is that the City has that right to review drainage plans so that they won't have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Pentel discussed the conditions to consider that were listed in the staff report. Shaffer stated he was concerned about voting on a subdivision that is going to need an immediate variance. Shaffer also stated concern about the City owning lot 8 and that the need might arise for the City to use it at some point in the future, then positioning this house close to another house becomes a side yard setback rather than a front yard setback and questioned if the setbacks set up correctly for that lot. Grimes mentioned that the Board of Zoning Appeals doesn't have to approve this variance and they would have to build a home that conforms. Pentel noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals tends to frown upon subdivision requests, which then require a variance. Grimes stated that part of the reason the proposed home is in the location it is, is because the City is requesting an additional 10 feet of easement above and beyond what is now there. So in fairness to the Gonyea's, he felt that there might be a legitimate reason for the variance request. McAleese stated that normally when he looks at subdivisions he looks at the requirements set out in the code and if it meets all the requirements he approves the subdivision. McAleese said it's a fundamental principle to not approve a subdivision unless you end up with lots that are buildable under the zoning code requirements for the lot without any variances. McAleese stated he's uncomfortable going forward without having the study before him. The best approach would be to have that study prepared and presented back to us so we can make recommendations to the Council. However, in this case he's willing to make it a condition that the City Staff will accept a study later. McAleese wants to make it clear that any approval he would make is subject to the idea that the lot will be buildable without the variance. Shaffer questioned if rear yard setbacks have been looked at. Grimes stated that the rear yard setback is 20% of the lot depth. Eck questioned if part of the response would depend not just on the soil condition, but also to the actual design, shape, size and location of the house. McAleese stated at this point, what we need to know, is that there is a footprint area on that lot in which they can build a home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 6 Eck stated it might not be as large as the one that is shown on the proposed plans. McAleese stated that in this particular case, the defining issue is the soil conditions and the slope. Rasmussen stated she has some difficulty talking about a setback from a lot that we really don't think will be developed in the future. If this is marginally buildable, the lot above it, lot 8 probably would be very difficult to build on and also Flag Avenue does not go through, so it's a situation where those spaces really are going to be green and the setbacks won't have any visual impact, so there's some kind of common sense factor that should be weighed in to it too. McAleese stated when we create a new lot through a subdivision process that the Planning Commission is bound to comply with the zoning code requirements, it doesn't matter what's next door as long as the lot created will allow a home that meets the building code requirements. When creating a lot, there has to be a buildable area inside the setback lines. Grimes stated they could build a home that will meet the setback requirements. It just won't be the house they want. Shaffer stated they have to show where the house should be. That's what should be coming to us, not a house with a variance. Groger questioned what the City Engineer's responsibility will be in terms of doing the soil stability study, and asked if it will take into account all the water drainage issues. Grimes stated that there are two processes. They have to have a drainage and erosion control plan as part of the building permit process which will look at the plans for building the home and maintaining both drainage and erosion on the site. They also have to have a second study done by an engineer saying that the home that is going to built there has stable soil and that the house is going to stay where they put it. Pentel asked when the water drainage plan has to be submitted to the City. Grimes stated that's part of the building permit process, but in this case the reason the City Engineer is so concerned about this is because we have an investment on that property. We have a sewer and a water line on old Flag Avenue and we want to be sure we're not building a home to close to that, or where there is a chance for damage during construction or where erosion may occur. Eck stated that drainage is more of an issue here than the stability of the structure, and questioned alternatives for drainage. Grimes states maybe a ditch or berms, this is something needs to be looked at as part of the building permit procedure. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 7 Pentel asked if there would be a possibility that the applicant would get to the building permit stage and be denied a building permit because of drainage issues. Grimes stated the applicant probably wouldn't be denied, but would be told drainage is something that has to be looked at. Pentel stated she'd like to see the soil study before she'd feel comfortable approving this subdivision. McAleese stated there might be something related to the soil study that may make this a non-buildable lot and that's where he has trouble approving this subdivision proposal. Eck stated that the staff recommendation does include the soil study as a condition subject to acceptability by the City Engineer. Grimes stated the City Engineer is very concerned about this and he's not going to accept just a cursory kind of report on this. He's going to want to be sure that it really works. McAleese stated he trusts staff on this issue and is willing to vote now and see the report later. But it seems better to bring this information out at the beginning so there can be a full discussion with all of the data on hand. Shaffer asked if the soil stability survey included a study of the drainage issues. Grimes stated it's covered in the building permit process, but the Planning Commission can request it to be part of the soil survey. Groger stated he's troubled that the proponent may have the expectation that this is the structure that is going to be built which would put the Board of Zoning Appeals in an awkward situation. He's also troubled by the drainage issue and wants that to be added as a condition to this proposal. MOVED by Shaffer with the conditions of rezoning the existing the duplex house to the correct zoning and an applicant study of the site for soil stability and drainage issues related to the site and the additional 10-foot easement recommended by the City Engineer. Seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the property subdivision. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance - Zoning Code Section 11.55 Olson stated this amendment stemmed from the Golden Meadows PUD. It would give discretion to the staff as far as what information is provided by the applicant. Also, it would state that the PUD regulations apply not only to the Zoning Code but also to the Subdivision regulations of the City Code. As discussed at the last Planning Commission Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 8 meeting, the language in section 2A has been rewritten and is much more clear. In section 3 the grammar was in question. The City Attorney said it's part of a list from a subsection of that part of the ordinance. It wasn't meant to be a complete sentence. Eck asked where the parentheses end in the sentence in section 3. Grimes stated the close parentheses should be after the word "therefrom". Eck stated that where it says chapter 12 the word "the" in front of chapter 12 should be crossed out. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one Pentel closed the. informal public hearing. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approve the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Zoning Code Section 11.55 with the above revisions. V. Informal Public Hearing - Revisions to the Official Golden Valley Zoning Map Olson reviewed the revisions from the last Planning Commission meeting. PUD 16 should be listed as 1b. Also, 2 properties along highway 100 were rezoned as right-of-way. The color of the historical society has been changed. The City Attorney suggested to leave the zoning as is on the old gas station property on Highway 100 as discussed previously, due to pending litigation. Shaffer asked about rezoning the property located next to 9120 Plymouth Avenue North (the subject property from tonight's meeting.) Grimes stated he'd first like to check to make sure that it meets the requirements of the zoning district. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one Pentel closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approve the revisions indicated on the staff memo to the Official Golden Valley Zoning Map. -- Short Recess -- VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Pentel reported that she went to the last City Council meeting and the Luther PUD was approved. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 9 VII. Other Business The Planning Commission meeting on March 26 will begin at 6:00 to hear a presentation by Mayor Mary Anderson. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.